Judgment : 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. These petitioners are disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are Co-operative Housing Societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959. The members of these societies have pooled their resources and erected dwelling units for their own use. After having erected apartment blocks consisting of several residential units, the society in each of these cases have formed Tenant Co-partnership Societies and the members were allotted shares. With the allotment of such shares, the members were held entitled to occupancy rights in respect of a designated flat corresponding to the shares allotted. In effecting such transfer of shares and delivery of apartments and acknowledging these transactions, there was no deed of conveyance and a society had only issued letters of allotment shares. 2. In terms of Section 38 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Section 17 (1) (b) and 17(1) (c) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 stood excluded and hence the above transactions did not attract any duty. However, this was amended by Act No.6 of 2001, with prospective effect from 1-4-2001, as a result the transactions above, which were till then exempted from stamp duty were no longer exempted and further such transfer of share was compulsorily registerable by executing an instrument of transfer, which attracted the appropriate stamp duty. Insofar as these petitions are concerned, the transactions which had been effected before the mending act coming into force are sought to be brought to stamp duty and petitioners were called upon to pay penalty in additional to such duty. It is this, which is under challenge. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question whether amending provision under the Act No.6 of 2001 would have retrospective effect is no longer res integra, the question which was decided, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, against the societies was carried in appeal before a Division Bench in W.A.No.3883 of 2003, (Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore and Others v State of Karnataka 2004(3) Kar.L.J.310) which stood disposed of on 17-11-2005, in terms of a memo filed by the State Government dated 17-2-2007 (Dattaprasad Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore Others v State of Karnataka 2007(4) Kar.L.J.645 (DB)) Signed by the Secretary , Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department as well as the Additional Government Advocate representing the State. For ready reference the text of the memo, which has been extracted in the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “MEMO” In the above writ appeals the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of insertion of proviso to Section 38 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 withdrawing the exemptions from the compulsory registration of instruments which are intended to transfer or in effect transfer the right, title or interest in immovable property executed by or in favour of House Building Cooperative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The above said insertion was effected by Act No.6 of 2001, with effect from 1-4-2001. The object and reasons to introduce the amendment are clearly reflected in the budges speech by the then Chief Minister/Finance Minister as excerpted below.- “213. To encourage Co-operative activities in the State, registration of documents executed by or in favour of Co-operative Societies are exempted under Section 38 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It has been observed that of late some House Building Co-operative Societies are misusing this provision. A person who buys property is not give title deed, but is made a shareholder of the Society, due to which the Government is losing huge revenue. Therefore, is proposed to amend Section 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to make all such instruments compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1) of the registration Act, 1908”. Therefore, from the date of amendment, the registration of documents is made compulsory in respect of instruments which are intended to transfer or in effect, transfer the right, title or interest in the immovable property executed by or in favour of House Building Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act.” Pursuant to the same the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. 4. The thrust of the argument of the Counsel in the case on hand is that, in view of the State Government having conceded that the Amending Act No.6 of 2001 would have prospective effect from 1-4-2001, the action on the part of the respondents in the present case in seeking to impose stamp duty on past transactions prior to 1-4-2001 is without jurisdiction and would be illegal. 5. 5. On the order hand, the Government Advocate would seek to contend that notwithstanding the above the Division Bench judgment, which was disposed of without entering upon the merits of the contentions, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Residents of Shri Chitrapur Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore v District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District and Another2004(3) Kar.L.J.310) in a subsequent matter had addressed the issue on merits and had taken a different view and it is the view taken on merits that would prevail and therefore the contention that the Act No.6 of 2001 would have prospective effect is an incorrect proposition and therefore the later view of this Court would have to be followed and that the levy would have to be upheld. In view of the State having conceded the position that Act No.6 of 2001 would apply prospectively from 1-4-2001 and this having been recorded by a Division Bench of this Court and the order of a Single Judge holding to the contrary having been set aside, insofar as the retrospective effect of the Section is concerned, this Court is bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench and the stand taken before the said Division Bench would bind the State Government. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Annexure-J in W.P.No.5253 of 2007 is quashed. Annexure-J in W.P.No.5821 of 2007 is quashed. Annexure-D in W.P.No.11520 of 2006 is quashed. Annexure-D in W.P.No.2621 of 2007 is quashed.